Appeals

Translation: Marganit W.

On 23.11.11 we reported on the hearing of Mustafa Muhammad Yusuf Odeh from the village of Wallaje – ID. 976862854 – who was arrested on 13.11.11  for allegedly attacking a policeman and for participating in an unlawful demonstration.

Justice Vigiser released the 50-year old man to partial house arrest. At the same time, the judge acceded to the prosecution’s request to halt Odeh’s release for 72 hours to allow the prosecution to submit an appeal.

The prosecution indeed appealed. The hearing took place on 7.12.11 before Justice Lieutenant-Colonel Nathaniel Benishu, who rescinded Justice Vigiser’s decision and ordered Odeh to remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

And so Mustafa Odeh’s trial began today - Case 5406/11

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Earlier, the defendant had rejected a plea bargain, opting for a trial.

His mother was present in the court.

The defense stated that the accused denies all the allegations in the charge sheet. On the day in question he had come back from medical tests and happened to encounter a demonstration against the separation wall that is being built in around the village. During the riots, he and a soldier were pushed from a terrace and fell down. Soldiers immediately sprayed him with pepper spray and arrested him. A video shot by one of the protesters records the incident. The defense asked the court to watch the video during the first evidentiary hearing set for 19.12.11 at 13:30. Witnesses for the prosecution (soldiers) will also be summoned to the hearing through their commanders.

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Evidentiary Hearing.

Defendant: Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarna – ID 852783190 – Case 5001/11

Resident of Beit Ummar, a 22-year old student

In custody since 12.10.11.

His mother and another relative are present in court.

The charge: throwing rocks at security forces and attacking a soldier.

On the day of his arrest there was a demonstration at Beit Ummar [or as the charge sheet calls it, “mass disturbances”] in which Amir took part. When a soldier tried to arrest him he resisted physically. When two other protesters joined in, the soldier took out his gun and shot Amir in the back, as he said “because he feared for his life.”

The wounded man was taken to hospital: one of his lungs was damaged by the shot. Three days later they began to interrogate him.

The prosecution summoned two witnesses.

Witness No. 1, Sgt.-Major Avi Ben-Lulu from Hebron Precinct – he took the defendant’s statement on 16.10.11.

The witness explained that since the accused was injured, he was not interrogated right away. At the Ofer detention facility he only took preliminary deposition so he could ask for remand extension. He interrogated the accused in Arabic, but wrote it down in Hebrew. Amir signed the statement after its content had been translated to him into Arabic. The recording machine malfunctioned so nothing was recorded. The file was transferred to Gush Etzion Police. This witness states that he was not in charge of the investigation, the police investigators at Gush Etzion were.

-Did you tell them “he claims that he was shot in the back?”

-I don’t remember what I said.

 

Witness No. 2: Sgt.-Major Motti Ohana [who ‘questioned’ the minor who incriminated Amir Sabarna]

The witness testified that he has been serving in the police for 21 years, in intelligence and detective work. For the last four years he has been employed as “questioner”.

In cross-examination the defense asks him to explain the term.

A. It means interrogating the suspect, before the investigation.

Q. What are the rules of “questioning” as distinct from interrogation? What about documentation?

A. After the initial questioning the suspect is transferred to an interrogator who records and documents the testimony in depth... The ‘questioners’ have more time… they save the interrogators’ time, in fact, they make the system more efficient.

Q. Before the investigation?

A. Before or after…Never during the investigation.

Q. You deposed him on 16.10.11, but the accused had already told his version on 13.10.11, so what was the point of the questioning? He had already been interrogated.

The witness explained that he has more time at his disposal than the interrogator.

Q. The accused started to confess right after his interrogation at the police… “The questioners beat me up” – Is the accused lying? Did you beat him up?

A. No way. We hear such complaints a lot lately.

Q. Had you recorded the interrogation, we could have checked the allegation.

A. I don’t agree. A liar is a liar.

Q. Is there a difference between questioning a minor and an adult?

A. With a minor you have to notify the parents.

Q. Are you a juvenile interrogator?

A. No…

Q. Did you follow the Juvenile Law?

A. As it is written…. But there’s a difference between questioning and interrogating.

Q. Does the Juvenile Law cover this? For instance, the fact that the parents have to be present?

A. This does not apply to Palestinians citizens. There has been an amendment in the last two months….

Q. How long did this questioning last?

A. Can’t say for sure… about half an hour.

Q. And this is what it yielded? Ten lines?

 

The attorney later stated that he was not familiar with the proceeding and had no knowledge of that document [produced by the ‘questioner’]. The (minor) witness should have been summoned and given a chance to give his version.

The judge decided that after hearing the (minor) witness, the court will rule as to the admissibility of the document.

The minor will be summoned to testify on 19.12. 11, together with other prosecution witnesses.

To be continued next week.

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

We came specifically to observe the appeal by Ashraf Abu Rahmah from Bil’in, who is accused of throwing rocks during a Friday demonstration. Bil’in is not Tahrir Square and certainly not Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, where politically neutral activists have become overnight heroes, and return peacefully to their homes the day after the demonstration. By contrast, the Abu Rahmeh family, who conduct non-violent protests against the illegal seizure of their land, continue to struggle, despite the suffering and bereavement they have endured.

 The son, Bassam (April 2009) – See B’tselem report

The daughter, Jawaher (the beginning of 2009) – See Haaretz report

They are both Ashraf’s siblings who were killed by the Israeli army during Friday demonstrations. Ashraf himself was lucky: he was only injured by a soldier who shot him at close range – by order of his commander – while he was standing, shackled and blindfolded, by an army jeep. See The Shooting in Ni’lin on YouTube.

The Israeli oppression continues: At the end of Friday demonstration on 21.10.11, Ashraf was arrested when the army invaded the village. Perhaps as retaliation for the penalty imposed on those who had shot him? His trial took place on 27.11.11 at Ofer Military Court before Justice Captain Zvi Frankel who decided to extend his detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The judge rejected the defense’s motion for alternative to imprisonment, which prompted today’s appeal.

 Appellant: Ashraf Abu Rahmah – ID 906435698, Case No. 2448/11

Judge: Colonel Yoram Haniel

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

Military Prosecutor: Eran Levi

 The discussion focused on the defense’s objection to testimonies by 2 soldiers who testified for the prosecution and which formed the basis for the indictment. The defense presented affidavits from witnesses who had been present at the demonstration as well as video clips, all testifying that Ashraf did not throw rocks. The defense claimed that “someone kidnapped the appellant from the scene and brought him to the police… we have no evidence as to who arrested him, where and why he was detained…“ When the judge asked for the prosecutor’s response, the latter said, “Based on the material in the file, I do not know.”

The defense said this is ground for unconditional release. Moreover, Ashraf was detained for two hours after the time the witnesses claim they saw him throw rocks, which was when the military jeeps entered the village. The video presented to the court shows the jeeps passing by Ashraf without arresting him. Only when he ran after them, waving a flag, was he nabbed and arrested. This is all recorded on tape.

The soldiers’ testimony is baffling. First, they stood behind a (new) wall 9 -meters tall, which prevented them from seeing the demonstrators, Moreover, while the commander claimed that he was able to identify Ashraf from a distance of 100-150 meters, under gas clouds, the other soldier testified that he saw the appellant from 5-10 meters, which is also inconceivable because of another obstacle – about 20 meters wide – that separated the demonstrators from the wall. Plus, there was a group of soldiers standing roughly at the same spot on the other side of the wall: where is their testimony?

The defense pointed out that there is a pillbox with a camera in Bil’in. A (female) observer testified that all the demonstrations are recorded there. The defense had requested to see the filmed demonstration, but to no avail. To the judge’s inquiry, the prosecutor said, “I have no answer at the moment.”

The defense protests Justice Zvi Frankels decision to accept the prosecution’s questionable proof and his disregard for her (the attorney’s) depositions, and, which is worse, for the personal circumstances of the defendant. She requested an alternative to detention, which will guarantee that Ashraf does not participate in Friday demonstrations. 

----------------------------------- 

                                             

A few days later, we were told that the appeal was rejected. Ashraf Abu Rahmah will stay in detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

See article in Haaretz re Ashraf’s detention.

-------------------------------              

In the yard we met parents from Daheisha Refugee Camp. Their son, Ismail Faraj, age 19, was arrested 3 weeks ago, on 10.10.11. The army kidnapped (not arrested) him at 4:30 AM, as is their wont. The parents needed the help of the Moked le’Haganat Ha’prat to find out that the son was detained at Ashkelon Prison. At Ofer they were made to wait for hours for a hearing that lasted 3 minutes. They were allowed only to see him, not talk or touch, for just 3 minutes. His remand was extended, naturally. On the phone later, the mother told me that Ismail is a law student. He had been incriminated by someone, and the family has no idea what the charge against him is.  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Hagit’s report

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: ?

 

22 arraignment cases are in the docket.

The charges – by order of prevalence: throwing objects, membership and activity in an unlawful organization, exit from “the region” without permit, and others.

 

Fadel Tamimi – Case No. 2697/11

(See earlier report from 28.4.11).

Fadel was released on bail on Monday, 16.5.11.

Attorney Lymor Goldstein has not yet received the investigation material from the prosecution; this includes a videocassette, which forms the basis of the evidence. The defense requests a postponement.

The next hearing is set for 27.7.11 at 9:30 AM.

 

Abbas Abdel Karim Diab Saada – Case No. 2707/11

Defense attorney Munther Abu Ahmed presents a plea bargain reached with the prosecution: two charges will be expunged and the defendant will admit to two out of the four charges in the indictment. The remaining charges are: breaking into a car in French Hill (Jerusalem) and an attempt to steal it; entry into Givat-Zeev (Jerusalem) without a permit.

The defendant  expresses remorse, which prompts the judge to say: “I don’t believe you. This is what you said on the last 4 or 5 occasions.”  It turns out that in 2002 the defendant was sentenced to 8 months in jail, and in 2003 he repeated the offenses and was sentenced by the Magistrate Court in Jerusalem to 6 months. He went to jail again, when a suspended sentence was put into effect.

The judge scoffs at the claim that the illegal entry into Israel was presented as a search for work, when in fact it was carried out in order to commit a property violation. The judge turns to us (the observers) saying: Write it down: “for reasons of livelihood…”

Sentence: 91 days in jail plus a stiff suspended sentence: 24 months for 3 years (for break-in and car theft). I was unable to hear if the suspended sentence includes the illegal entry into Israel [H.S.]

 

Iyad Raed Hatib – Case No. 2877/11. A boy of barely 15, accused of throwing rocks. He has been detained for 12 days and shows signs of having been beaten.

(see earlier report from 8.5.11)

Since the defendant is a minor, the trial before Justice Fleischman is conducted behind closed doors. The judge decides to release him to house arrest under the supervision of his mother and another person. There are also heavy sums to be posted as bail.

Implementation of the decision is postponed because the prosecution plans to appeal.

 

Naji Majed Ribhi Arar – Case No. 2546/11

(see earlier reports from 10.4.11 and 28.4.11)

At the defense’s request arraignment is set for 22.6.11 in Justice Fleischman’s court.

 

Three additional detainees represented by Atty. Lymor Goldstein (see earlier report from 28.4.11) will be arraigned before Justice Fleischman:

 

Fathi Hamdalla Arar – Case No. 2753/11

Muhammad Kassem Arar – Case No. 2754/11

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman – Case No. 2698/11

 

Courtroom 3 – Court of Appeal

Judge: Nissim Sarousi

Prosecutor: Dvir Peleg

 

Atty. Muhammad Aabed appealed the administrative detention of a 27-year old detainee, married and father of a baby, who was arrested a month ago.

The defense argued: the detainee is haunted by his past: he has been detained 4 times before. The last time he was released form administrative detention was two years ago. In each case the charge was membership and activity in an illegal organization. In his youth he belonged to an organization, and since then he has been unable to shake off the label. Today, the defense claims, the area is governed by the PA and people it considers undesirable are reported to the Israeli authorities.

After his last release, the man got married and opened a store. Suddenly, he was again arrested. The GSS forces people who have rehabilitated themselves to return to their past lives.

The prosecutor moves to reschedule the appeal and maintain the detention order. He gives no reasons.

The detainee tells the judge: I used to belong to the Islamic Jihad, but I left the organization, just like Ariel Sharon who left the Likud…

________________________

 

Ofra’s report

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Ilya Theorody

 

Tarek Shaheen – Case No. 2605/11, suspected of membership and activity in an illegal organization, 19 years old, from Daheisha refugee camp in Bethlehem.

Tarek was arrested on 7.4.11at 3 AM at his home. His father told us that his son is a high school graduate, enrolled at the university and that this is his first arrest.

20 soldiers took part in the arrest: four entered the house, awoke the entire family (in English) and ordered them not to say a word and not to resist, informing them they had come to arrest Tarek. The family watched in silence as their son was arrested and taken out into the dark. Tarek was held for a few days at the police station, then transferred to Ofer [Military detention camp].  

10 other youngsters from Daheisha were arrested that night and are still in custody.

According to the father, the youngsters paraded with flags in the camp and were later incriminated. The father claims that the Israeli army routinely raids Daheisha and Bethlehem several times a week.

Security in Area A is under Palestinian jurisdiction.  The occupation, however, seems to breach all borders, written agreements and international conventions. This is evident from soldiers’ testimonies in “Breaking the Silence”.

The hearing was rescheduled for 23.5.11 due to changes in defense attorneys.

 

Ali Kamal Hoarin – Case No. 1240/11, a young man from Dahariya who has been in detention for 4 months on charges of “preparing/throwing/laying of a bomb” (actually a kind of flare, according to the prosecutor’s explanation).

The detainee’s father is in court, ready to testify, but in the end the defense cancels his appearance in order to save time. I attended only part of the hearing, in which Ali was interrogated first by the defense, then by the prosecution.

According to his testimony, he had a [entrance to Israel] permit and was working in Mishor Adumin at a solar heating plant. He used to sleep there, going home once a month for a couple of days or for a weekend. He worked from 7 AM to 4 PM, rested for 2 hours, then worked from 6 PM to midnight, as well as on Saturday nights. From his answers to the prosecutor it was evident that Ali denies the allegation (which refer to August and October 2010), claiming that most of the time he was absent from the village, and when he came home he spent his time with his family and rested. The prosecutor tried to shake this alibi.

I am not sure how the hearing ended, but it is clear to me that the young man was exploited under disgraceful conditions in a settlers’ plant.

Moreover, I checked in the Yellow Pages and found “Barsheshet” factory in Mishor Adumim (P. 121), which advertises itself as a patriotic “blue and white” establishment.

Recent data by the Palestinian Statistics Bureau show a high level of unemployment among young people, as well as a large number of Palestinians working in Israel and in the settlements. These data shed light on the problem (and also on the case of Abas Saada, who is accused of a break-in).

I reported this to a journalist as well as to “B’tselem”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

Morning and afternoon sessions

We came to hear the mini-trial concerning the admissibility of the interrogation of the boy Islam Dar Ayoub Tamimi, as well as an appeal of the court’s decision to remand Bassam Tamimi in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings. Both defendants are residents of the village of Nabi Saleh.

 

In between, we also peeked into other courtrooms:

 

In Courtroom 7 there were more than 60 traffic cases in the docket; they were processed at lightening speed, filling the state’s coffers.

 

In Courtroom 2, as is the custom on Mondays, mostly minors were tried in front of Justice Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai. Out of 29 cases in the docket, 18 concerned “rock throwing” by minors.

 

Toward noon, the mini-trial began regarding the admissibility of the interrogation of Islam Saleh Dar Ayoub [Tamimi], ID 402197834 -Case No. 1361/11. The defendant is 14 years old.

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

 

The reason for the delay this morning was that Islam and his parents were detained at the compound gate and were refused entry. When Atty. Lasky intervened, the father and son were let in, but not the mother. The guard who detained the family told the judge that indeed he had refused to let the mother in and sent her home. The reason: she “caused a disturbance at the gate”. A furious Atty. Lasky said she would lodge a complaint against the imperious soldier.

Islam came in limping: he had broken his leg the day before at home where he is under house arrest.

Prosecution Witness No. 1 was Atty. Lymor Goldstein, who declared that since he was about to testify, he was resigning from the case.

The interrogation focused on Goldstein’s attempts to locate the accused once he had found out about his arrest… and then on his attempt to meet with his client BEFORE his interrogation, an attempt that failed, despite the numerous phone calls he placed to the police station informing the police that he was on his way: Inspector Jalal Awwida [who had already testified in this case – see report from 21.3.11] prevented him from attending the interrogation, invoking an injunction against a meeting between detainee and attorney.

The witness testified that when he saw his client after the interrogation he found him distraught and in very poor condition. He was crying and told Atty. Goldstein that he had been beaten by the soldiers, and kept in a jeep following his arrest.

In cross-examination, the prosecutor queried Goldstein’s psychological expertise. He showed the court two film strips allegedly proving that the boy had not been distraught.

Then the defense presented the court an opinion by a child psychologist, based on professional literature, detailing the effect of detention on minors. She also wanted to present a special UN report by Professor Norak regarding the Convention Against Torture, which cites international law governing detention and children’s rights.

The prosecutor’s response: The cited opinion does not relate directly to the defendant’s case.

The prosecutor moves to call the expert himself to testify.

The judge’s decision: In view of the disagreement about the expert opinion, she sides with the prosecution: the experts need to be deposed. The defense can do so, if it wishes.

The defense asked to set a date for the defendant’s mother to testify, as well as for the expert witnesses.

The mother’s testimony was set for 14.6.11.

(See further details of the hearing in the protocol - Hebrew)

See also Amira Hass’s article in Haaretz on 23.5.11.

 

Courtroom 3 – Appeals court

Judge: Sgt.- Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: ??

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

 

After the lunch break  we attended a hearing in the appeal of a “remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings” (from 17.4.11) of Bassam Tamimi, age 44, ID 959225640 - Case No. 2058/11.

The defendant was one of several people incriminated by Islam Dar Ayoub. He was arrested on 24.3.11.

(See earlier report from 31.3.11 as well as the indictment – Hebrew - and a post in the site of the

Committee of the Popular Struggle]

 

The defense’s main arguments: the testimonies by 3 soldiers, claiming that Bassam Tamimi incited and gave orders to use violence during the weekly demonstrations [against land confiscation in Nabi Saleh], lack evidentiary base – there is no photographic documentation or recorded phone calls that can prove the charge of incitement.

The defense also protested the way the incriminator [Islam] was arrested and interrogated, insisting that the defendant’s name had been obtained from the boy by coercion.

 

The judge listened politely to the arguments, then several days later handed down his decision: the appeal was rejected – Bassam Tamimi will remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon sessions

 

The trial of Bassam Tamimi is rescheduled for 15.5.11

 

After the break, appeals of two Nabi Salah detainees were heard, presented by Atty. Limor Goldstein:

Fadel Tamim Hassan Tamimi and Mahmud Wajia Mahmud Tamimi.

Justice Major Benishu’s decisions have not been handed down yet.

 

A 15-year old from Bil’in, Ayad Hatib (Prosecution Case No.1966/11) was arrested last Friday and then brought before Justice Sharon Kenan. The boy’s face bore the marks of beating and his  hand was bandaged. The boy said that soldiers had showered him with blows and kicks. The judge stated that the file he was holding did not mention that the boy had resisted arrest, and there was no explanation for the fact that his hand had been bandaged by a medic.

The judge remanded him in custody until Thursday, 12.5.11 and instructed the court to allow him 5 phone calls at the state’s expense to contact his family. Atty. Goldstein requested setting the hearing for Wednesday.

 

Courtroom 2

Judge: Captain Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Asher Silver

 

Between 10 am and 1:30 pm two prosecution witnesses were questioned in the evidentiary trial of Adham Muhamad Azmi Ahlil – Case No. 2006/11, a 20 year old resident of Beit Ummar.

His mother is present in court. She tells me that Adham was arrested 2 months ago in a schoolyard, on a charge of throwing rocks. He is represented by Atty. Akram Bargout.

 

The first witness to testify is one of the incriminators who implicated the accused. He is a 17 year old boy, dressed in prison uniform, his feet shackled (the handcuffs were removed when he was brought in). He sits on a chair, his head bent, staring at the floor,

When I walked in, the prosecutor’s interrogation was in progress. Concluding his testimony, the witness said that Interrogator Fares made him sign a statement whose content was unknown to him.

In cross-examination by the defense, the witness denies everything he said in the police interrogation: he did not throw rocks, he did not see others throwing rocks, he was not asked about 26 (!) other people mentioned in his statement, he does not know the accused, he did not state that his brother is married to the defendant’s sister etc. etc. The witness claims to be illiterate. Regarding questions that do not touch directly on his detention and police interrogation, Adham states clearly: he works around the clock in a garage located below his family’s apartment, where he also sleeps.

 

The second witness, Amru Shukran Abu Rahman is also a 17 year old from Beit Ummar . He is a high school student and was arrested on 24.2.11 for throwing rocks.

In reply to the prosecutor’s questions he admits having thrown rocks a long time ago, perhaps ten years ago.

The prosecutor declares him a hostile witness. Later in the interrogation he confronts him with a statement he gave to the police (in Arabic), which he signed. The witness’s response: “I did not sign, this is not my signature.” He does not even remember being interrogated by the police. He remembers being arrested by the army, being taken to Etzion [police station] where he was kept for 8 days, “during which I did not see any interrogators or policemen, not even in civilian clothes (GSS) and I was not interrogated.”

His answers to other questions posed by Atty. Bargout in cross-examination were similar: “I don’t know, I don’t remember’ I was not interrogated.”

Declaring him “hostile witness” (following his denial of almost everything in his police statement) serves the prosecution. It is a procedure aimed at undermining the testimony in the eyes of the court, thus strengthening the elements of the statement that help build the case.

A date was set, 16.5.11, for deposing two more witnesses: the investigators who took the statement.

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Sharon Kenan

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan.

 

Allam Yousuf Bader Saakik – Case No. 2359/11, 16 years old from Beit Ummar. He is held in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Allam is accused of throwing rocks, based on an incriminator who testified that the two threw rocks together about six months ago. Atty. Akram Bargout, who received the case from another lawyer, discovered that the accused had been in jail (for throwing rocks) for 4 months, and hence could not have taken part in another incident on the date specified in the indictment.

Consequently, the prosecution amended the charge, fitting the violation to a date AFTER Allam ‘s release from jail. There is also a suspended sentence against Allam, but it will not go into effect if the present charge cannot be proved.

The defense objected to amending the charge, arguing that even after the change, there is not enough evidence for the present charge, and he demanded his client’s release.

The judge accepted the defense’s argument regarding the insufficient proof and decided on release under the following conditions: 5000 shekels deposit and reporting to court on 16.5.11 in front of Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai.

The boy’s mother sat in court (another son is in detention and his hearing is today in another courtroom). The father is old and sick and cannot provide for his family. It is unlikely that the family will be able to pay the sum required for Allam’s release. In addition, the prosecution is appealing the release and the appeal hearing is scheduled for this coming Wednesday.

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

Week of Passover

Appeals court

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

 

Naal Samir Habib Halabi – Case No. 1531/11

Defense: Iliya Theodory

Charge: membership in a student association: the respondent was chairman of the election committee of an organization that arranges parties and ceremonies, publishes a paper and has ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The appeal was lodged by the prosecution, which demands detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. An earlier court had released him.

The court’s decision was based on mistaken identity. The respondent was described as redheaded and fair skinned (he has black hair and is swarthy), and yet the prosecution bases its case on that identification, as well as on the statement of an incriminator who had left the organization in 2009, before the period relevant to the case; however, he participated in elections in 2009 and 2010. The prosecution also complained about the 7-month delay in presenting the indictment, citing earlier cases where judges ruled that delay does not minimize the risk. In this case the risk is based on the fact that the respondent has a suspended sentence of 18 months for 5 years, starting on 12.9.06 for the same violation. Even if there is a fault in the identification, the earlier court’s decision to release the accused, because of the suspended sentence needs to be changed because of the suspended sentence.

 

Attorney Theodory, representing the respondent, raised a general objection to the way the police conducts its identification line-up, which consists of presenting only a picture of the suspect and asking leading questions. He argued that the court ignored the fact that 24 photos have to be shown, not just 7 or 8, and in each case the suspect’s photo should be inserted in between the other seven, while an attorney is present.

The attorney asked the court not to rely on the incriminator’s testimony in this case, since he had left the organization before the relevant period. In addition, the respondent says he was studying journalism at the time, while his accuser said he studied sociology. Theodory cited a case in which a member of the Popular Front was released, and the prosecution did not appeal. In addition, the respondent had to pay a fine of 15,000 shekels. His father lives in Jerusalem and his mother lives in the Occupied Territories, which the defense claims, minimizes the flight risk.

In sum, the attorney moves to reject the appeal.

(Both parents were present in court and carried on a “conversation” with their son from their seats in the back of the hall).

The judge did not hand down a decision, nor did he indicate when he might do so.

 

Nabil Muhammad Ali Abu Saifan – Case No. 1477/11

An elderly man. His son (about 30) sat in the hall, but there was no eye contact between the two. A plea bargain was reached adding 3 months to a suspended sentence for a year. The charge is possession of a gun and bullets. So far the accused has been in detention for 75 days.

Atty. Firas, who represented him in the trial, was not part of the agreement: it had been arranged with another attorney.

 

Saleh Muhammad Saleh Shamasna – Case No. 1522/11

Charge: throwing rocks on ten occasions.

The prosecutor says that the language of the incrimination indicates intensive activity on the part of the respondent. He cites a decision stipulating that in cases of violent disturbances, the threshold of evidence needn’t be high. As for arguments for release, which cited the respondent’s age and his clean record, the prosecutor claimed that it was not a one-time occurrence, which warrants consideration: the period in which the violations were committed span over 5 months.

Atty. Nubani pointed out that at first the respondent’s name was not included in a list of violators, only later was his name added. The judge showed the defense a list of incriminated people and pointed out that the respondent’s name was first on the list. The attorney retracted his claim, saying it was “a grocery list”.

Other defendants claimed that they did not know the respondent; some denied that he had participated in rock throwing. The defense asked for consideration for his client’s young age and his clean record and requested that he be allowed to go back to school, especially in view of the fact that he had posted a 10,000-shekel bail.

The prosecution again stated that the respondent had admitted he knew the incriminator, thus any claim about mistaken identity should be rejected.

No decision was handed down and no mention of when it might be.

 

Yussuf Awwida – Case No. 1484/11

The detainee asked to defer his hearing because he wished to be represented by Atty Abu Amer, who apparently was not informed about the hearing today. The detainee was aware that this might prolong his detention. Surprisingly, the prosecution asked that this procedure not be repeated, even though the accused was already detained until the conclusion of the proceedings, since the hearing of this case had already been deferred twice. The judge acceded to the defendant’s request, so he could have the representation he wanted.

The hearing was set for 1.5.11 (until that date there are no hearings in this court because of a Druze holiday).

 

Appeal in the case of Musaeb Rashdi Rashad Atrash – Case No. 1521/11

and Aata Said Yacub Abu Ramuz – Case No. 1520/11

Atty. Ahmad Munbir stated that an internal police investigation is underway regarding the  allegation that the police attacked these boys (who themselves are accused of attacking a policeman). According to the defense, the boys went to the Cave of the Patriarchs to hand out invitations for the wedding of Musaeb’s brother. There was some pushing and shoving at the Southern gate, which resulted with the boys being accused of pushing a soldier (who was not hurt). When the boys lodged a complaint at the Kiryat Arba police station that THEY had been pushed by security forces, the policemen cursed and beat them; as a result Musaeb’s arm was broken. The cast is now off the arm, but Musaeb has to undergo an operation on his pinky (the attorney points to the digit). The two boys have been in custody for almost 40 days, and consequently Musaeb missed his brother’s wedding. The attorney noted that such cases usually end up with a deposit at the police station, but in this case the police used excessive force. Moreover, no videos were shown as evidence of the incident where the alleged pushing occurred, even though there are at least 20 cameras there. The attorney requests alternative to detention.

The prosecutor counters that the police acted lawfully and used reasonable force.

The judge asks the prosecutor what the penalty would be if they were convicted: the punishment may not exceed time already served in detention. The prosecutor did not know the answer. He said several policemen testified about the defendants’ conduct and that testimony was sufficient, hence no videos were necessary. He argued for ‘endangerment’ since every attack on security forces constitutes endangerment. Musaeb has a prior violation: he was accused of possessing a knife and did not show up to one hearing in his case.

The attorney explained why his client did not show up, describing the hardships involved in trying to come to court from South Hebron Mountain: the hours-long wait at the checkpoints and the 100 shekel travel expense (when the daily wage is 50).

The judge concluded the hearing by requesting the prosecution to produce a video of the incident, if one exists (the prosecutor argued against it). He also reminded the prosecutor to find out what the punishment would be if the defendants are found guilty (they may have already exceeded the jail term).

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

Morning and Afternoon Sessions 

 

Courtroom 2, Juvenile court

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Atty. Captain Michael Avitan

 

Hagit’s Report

There are 21 cases in the docket today. In 16 of them the main charge is throwing rocks, and incendiary objects. About ten of the defendants have been in custody for at least 6 months for violations allegedly carried out in 2010 or earlier.

In the first hour of the morning session 6 young boys were brought in. In all of these cases an extension was granted and dates were set for continuation.

 

Muhammad Mahmud Diab Harfush – Case No. 3773/10, 16.5 years old from Harbata.

He accepts a revised indictment for throwing rocks – with a friend - at Route 443.

Among the charges is also: a plan to throw rocks, which did not come to fruition, as well as the making of an incendiary object. The violations were committed over several months in 2010.

Atty. Safiya also represents this defendant’s brother, who apparently was arrested with him. Details will be given in the next hearing.

 

Muhammad Eid Yussuf Badran – Case No. 2705/10

This was supposed to be the concluding hearing, but the judge objected to the plea bargain, which involved replacing Atty.Muhammad Shaheen with Akram Samara. The agreement was made according to the procedures set by the Palestinian Prisoner’s Club and with the prosecution’s consent, but the judge determined that at this late stage of the process the defense’s replacement was done without notifying the defendant and his family; consequently, she did not release Atty. Shaheen from representing the defendant.

A memorandum hearing was set for 4.4.11.

 

At 11 the boys sitting in the dock were ushered out and instead Islam Salah Dar Ayoub – Case No. 1367/11 was brought in. His hearing continued after lunch break. His father was present in the court.

The defense was Atty. Gaby Lasky.

Following Justice Captain Etty Adar’s decision (given in a separate hearing) to release Islam to his parents’ custody on 5000-shekel bail and 5000 shekel third party guarantee, the prosecution moved to halt the proceedings. Atty. Gaby Lasky objected to the motion and to the prosecution’s attempt to add restrictions to the release (such as: reporting periodically to the police and insuring that the defendant and his family be always available by phone).

The judge decided to release the defendant and to allow the prosecution to appeal.

The prosecution appealed, but until today the appellate court has not handed down a decision.

 

Norah’s Report

After lunch there was an additional hearing in the mini-trial of the boy Islam Dar Ayoub (Tamimi), from the village of Nabi Salah. The court again examined the defense’s claim that Islam’s statement was obtained by the police interrogators through illegal means and is therefore inadmissible. (See earlier report that includes testimony by prosecution witnesses from Maale Adumim police station: both claimed they were following their commander’s instructions).

Today, the commanding officer himself, Inspector Jalal Awida, was summoned to testify for the prosecution. He was asked the same questions posed to the earlier witnesses – and the answers, too, were the same.

Yes, the boy was informed of his right to remain silent.

Yes, the atmosphere throughout the interrogation was pleasant and friendly.

No, Islam’s parents were not present, but it is not the custom to have Palestinian parents present during interrogations: they live too far away and it is too complicated.

No, the witness is not responsible to what happens before the interrogation (arresting a child at 2 AM, keeping him in a jeep for hours, blindfolded and bound, preventing him from going to the bathroom, depriving him of sleep… and whatever else that happened there. The fact is the boy arrived at the police station in a wretched state, and when the interrogation began, at 9 AM, he must have been exhausted and scared to death).

The commander affirmed that he had given the order not to wait for the attorney Lymor Goldstein who had requested to be present at the interrogation.

“There was an order to begin the interrogation, so the interrogation began.”

Thus, he too was merely following orders from his superior officer.

The superior officer is Yitzhak Shilo, head of Interrogation Division of Judea and Samaria. He was summoned to testify a week later, on 29.3.11 (Unfortunately, we were unable to attend so the report is based on the hearing’s protocol in Hebrew.)

Yitzhak Shilo affirms that he gave the order not to wait for the attorney explaining:

“…The suspect was arrested by the IDF forces. As per our request… he was brought to us for interrogation. That morning, during his interrogation, he admitted participating in disturbances and incriminated others [emphasis mine – N.O.]… The attorney came to Headquarters and asked to meet with him. The interrogation team informed me that the attorney was at the gate… and that the accused was starting to admit to the charges and to incriminate others. Since the interrogation was ongoing and was as yet inconclusive, I determined that if I allowed the attorney to meet the suspect, it would seriously compromise the interrogation. Thus, I instructed the interrogators to tell the attorney that I am delaying his meeting with his client… and that eventually I would allow him to see the client…”

The meeting eventually took place at 14:30, after the 5-hour interrogation was over.

Shilo neglected to mention in his testimony that the attorney had telephoned the station before the interrogation began and asked to delay it until his arrival.

 

In his testimony on 21.3.11 Jalal Awida testified regarding the same question posed by the prosecutor:

Q: The defense claims that the defendant’s right to an attorney was violated…

A: It was not violated. Had he requested to consult an attorney, we would have immediately consented.

This is a very strange answer. Does a 14 year old know his rights? After all, they did not inform him about his right to consult an attorney.

 

What did Islam do during the 2 hour hearing today? He sat on the bench, his head slumped on his knees, covered by his hands – either asleep or simply refusing to hear the humiliating story or watch the video of the interrogation that the defense presented in order to prove that the minor had not been notified about his right to remain silent. He sat scrunched on the bench, not even looking at his father or at the people who came to support him. A 14 year old is capable of understanding the meaning of having incriminated many villagers who are now being arrested one by one and prosecuted. Even if he named them under heavy pressure, it must be very hard to live with the knowledge that he was made to incriminate his neighbors.

 

(see detailed protocol of today’s hearing in Hebrew)

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Hagit Shlonsky’s Report

 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon (sitting in for Sharon Rivlin-Ahai)

Prosecutor: Tali Keret (and another prosecutor in civilian clothes)

4 minors were in the dock, waiting for the judge for about an hour. The hearing started late, at 11 AM.

There were 23 cases in the docket, most charges were of throwing rocks and other objects.

By noon 8 cases were heard.

 

This was supposed to be the concluding hearing in the case of  Wassim Said Saadi Alkarki – Case No. 3964/10. He is a 16-year old boy from Hebron. His Attorney Ilya Theodory, tells the  judge that the agreement reached with the prosecution is problematic. Wassim had been convicted and served time on three occasions in 2010. His present detention has been going on for six months already as resulting from a suspended sentence. He comes from an afflicted family and needs treatment, not further incarceration. The PA does not have suitable services and institutions for Wassim’s special needs. Without proper treatment he will repeat the offences. Wassim’s father throws himself on the mercy of the court, pleading for his son’s release on conditions specified in the plea bargain, which include a 3500-shekel fine. The judge accedes to the defense and releases the boy on 1000-shekel bail on condition that he is referred to a welfare officer at Beit-El for observation. Only after options for treatments are considered will he be sentenced.

Prosecutor Tali Keret objects to the deferment of sentencing. The judge allows her two hours for consultation. 20 minutes later a solution is found that allows the boy to be released after the parents have deposited 3500 shekels.

If he is not released by 14.4.11, another hearing will take place on that day.

 

Amir Samir Waja Bastami – Case No. 4701/10, from Abu-Dis.

He was 16 when the violations occurred in May and July of 2010.

(See previous reports: 7.2.11 and 14.2.11 from Ofer)

He is charged with throwing a paint bottle and a Molotov cocktail with other boys. Today he accepts the charges. Atty. Akram Smara conducted the evidentiary trial. Interrogators from Maale-Adumin police testified. “Their testimony lacked credibility and veracity… a cassette recording of the interrogation went missing…” These revelations, however, did not bother the court; it merely noted that there were ‘evidentiary difficulties’ and therefore accepted the agreement between the sides: 14 months jail time; 10 months suspended sentence for 4 years and 2000-shekel fine.

 

The hearing in the case of Mahmud Alaa Mahmud Samara – Case No. 1406/11 - a 15-year old accused of throwing objects, was postponed to 28.3.11. Atty. Akram Samara represents him.

----------------------------------

 

Ofra Ben-Artzi’s report:

 

Military Court of Appeals

Judge: Colonel Aharon Mishnayot

Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout

Respondent: Muhammad Daoud – Case No. 1227/11

 

The prosecution appealed a sentence, which took into account the personal circumstances of the accused.

Even though Muhammad had already been convicted in the past for throwing rocks, the court took into consideration his mental state and sentenced him to only 16 months in jail. The prosecutor insisted on “a significantly harsher punishment”.

The case involves throwing a Molotov cocktail. The prosecutor contrasted the plea bargain with an evidentiary hearing, declaring that this is a “futile trial”. In other words, according to him, a Palestinian who chooses to go through a trial is cheating the court and must therefore pay for it with a stiff punishment, so as to deter others. From the prosecutor’s perspective, those who opt for plea bargain should not feel like ‘suckers’ compared to those who go through a trial, thereby wasting the court’s time.

When the prosecutor said: …”Unlike others, the respondent chose to conduct an evidentiary trial…” the judge responded: “It was his right to do so!”

The judge handed down his decision the next day: he rejected the prosecution’s appeal.

An important comment made by the defense:Find out if the psychiatrist at Ofer Prisonspeaks Arabic. Probably not!

 

Appellant: Iman Said Hamida, ID 904614062,detained since 19.10.09

Atty. Bargout allowed me to look into an interesting decision given on 13.2.11

 

The appellant requested that the court summon police informers, who shared a detention cell with him at Shikma Detention Center in Ashkelon. He described a series of physical abuses, including a strangling attempt, injuries to the legs, intimidation and humiliation.

In an uncommon, perhaps precedent-setting decision, the judge ordered the police informers to testify. Colonel Mishnayot sided with the appellant and nullified the lower court’s decision which relied, among others, on Section 87a of the Security Regulations which states: “…When dealing with the activity of learning organizations, ambiguity is an essential part of the modus operandi…”

The judge commented: “As our Sages used to say: ‘There is no blessing save in what is hidden from the eye.’”

It is important to note that there was no objection to summoning the GSS interrogators to testify, and indeed they testified. But the judge noted: “There is a clear difference between interrogators and informers… the very existence of GSS interrogators is known to one and all and is not done undercover… whereas the activity of informers… is part of methods that are done undercover and are protected.”

------------------------------

 

Hava Halevi’s report:

On 3.1.11 I reported on the trial of two defendants, Salah and Daoud Abu Romi, members of the same family, who worked at a gas station in Maale Adumim. Since they were often short of money, they had an agreement with the bookkeeper: she gave them cash advances on their salaries, they signed for the “loan” and later returned the money, mostly by receiving a smaller payment.

Suddenly one day, according to the indictment, the owner discovered that 160,000 shekels were missing from the till. The two men were arrested.

Their trial continues today. The indictment has been amended. Only 8,000 shekels were missing. The owner called one of the men, and he admitted taking the money, and promptly returned it. The bookkeeper testified, but she did not say that she had a tacit agreement with the workers. She had not told the owner about the agreement, so the charge was “stealing from the boss.”

How did the sum shrink from 160,000 to 8000? Who came up with that astronomical sum in the first place? Atty. Daoud Azi told me: They write whatever they want.

Penalty: 5000 shekels fine plus 2000 compensation to the owner for the mental distress he suffered, plus 5-month suspended sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W. 

Courtroom 3 – Military Appellate Court

Judge: Lieutenant-Colonel Nathanel Benishu

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Amos

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

 

Decision by the Appellate Court regarding the prosecution’s appeal for stricter punishment in the case of

Abdullah Mahmud Muhammad Abu Rahme,ID 997446703 - Case Nos. 2599/10 and 2600/10

 

Background

Abdullah Abu Rahme, coordinator of the Bil'in Popular Committee against the Separation Wall, was arrested on 10.12.09.

On 24.8.10 he was convicted of charges of incitement and organizing illegal demonstration against the separation wall in Bil’in.

The verdict was given on 11.10.10: 12 months imprisonment. On the day he was to be released (18.11.10), the prosecution requested a postponement so it could appeal the leniency of the sentence. The request was accepted by the court.

The Appeal hearing took place on 6.12.10.

 

Today Justice Benishu handed down his decision. The prosecution requested a two-year jail sentence for Abu Rahme, but the court set the punishment at 16 months. Abu Rahme has been in jail for 13 months, and now he is due to spend 3 more months there.

 

There were about 30 people in the visitors’ gallery. Apart from Abdullah’s wife and brother, there were diplomats from Germany, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Britain and the EU, as well as reporters and photographers from Reuters, the British Independent and Haaretz. These honorable visitors were treated very politely by representatives of Ofer Public Relations Office and the Army Spokesman.

The international protest against Abdullah’s imprisonment was of no avail. The prosecution insisted on a stiffer punishment as a deterrent against incitement against the military sovereignty in the area.

 

After the sentencing, Atty. Lasky explained to the visitors that the decision was politically motivated, aimed at suppressing the popular struggle. She also pointed out the difference in the Israeli penal code, where the punishment for incitement is 8 months.

 

Abdullah’s wife told us later, that she was barred from visiting her husband. Atty. Lasky said she had asked the president of the court for an explanation for this injunction. She was promised an answer, but so far nothing has changed.

 

  

Translation: Diana Runbanenko

This report is composed of two reports. One, from 27.12.10, contains a section from the Russian Compound report, and the second – from 29.12.10. Combining the two reports sheds light on the course of events.

Russian Compound, 27.12.10  AM

Judge: Yehuda Liblein

A very unpleasant atmosphere hovers over the small remand-extensions room at the Russian Compound. The attorney of the detainee, 16 and four months of age, is Ismail Tawil, who has no permit to enter Israel, and so Att. Aamer is replacing him.

 Abdullah Hashem Abdullah Jabara – ID 936110626

Aged 17, he is accused of disturbing the public order in Turmus Ida.

The police requests extension of remand by 15 days. Abdulla was arrested on 6.12.10. This is his third remand extension.

In this case too, Att. Aamer is substituting for Att. Tawil. He asks questions that ought to help him understand the case, and the specific accusations.

The investigator’s replies are monotonous, laconic and predictable: the investigation is at its height, everything is in the confidential report which is at the court’s disposal.

Att. Aamer tries to penetrate the wall of confidentiality, but without success, even when he requests the distinguished judge’s intervention.

Before his summation, Att. Naji asks to have recorded in the court minutes that (in my words): it is the right of the defence to obtain an answer to questions, in order to understand the reasonableness of the period sought [for extending remand]. It injures the suspect’s rights to a proper defence. Since all our questions are referred to the confidential report, there is actually no point to the questions raised by the defence. As a result, I have no other option than to proceed to the summation.

The investigator requests 15 more days.

The defence asks to take into account that the suspect has already been in custody for 21 days, undergoing an investigation “in progress” regarding the charge of disturbing the public order. Now the police is seeking a further extension – which is unconscionable. It is an injury to the rights of the accused, whereas the court is meant to safeguard his rights.

The judge sums up what he has learned from the confidential file and rules: another 7 days investigation – a third remand-extension for disturbing the public order.

 

Muhammad Radwan Jabara – IS 860146497

Muhammad is 16 and four months old. This is his first remand extension.

Att.  Aamer represents him on behalf of Att. Tawil.

The investigator is requesting 15 more days. Att. Aamer does not use his right to question. He seems to have decided there is no point in asking, when the answers are known in advance.  He proceeds to his summation.

Att. Aamer asks to decrease the number of days of the investigation, because throughout the whole period of the investigation there will not be any judicial criticism, and the detainee is close to being a minor. [In the Occupied Territories, a minor is up to the age of 16 – in Israel, up to the age of 18].

The judge’s summation: He read the case and learnt from it that the ‘almost minor’ admitted to having been involved in activity against regional security. He relies on the confidential report. Since the youth is almost a minor, the judge acceded only partially to the request by the police, and ruled: 11 days extension of remand to investigate the offence.

 

****************************

          

Ofer Military Court, 29.12.10  AM

 Courtroom 3 – Court of Appeals

Judge: Col. Aharon Mishnayot

Defence: Att. Naji Aamer; throughout the deliberations,

Att. Ismail A-Tawil was seated next to him

Prosecutor: Police Officer Eran Levy

Appeal to remand extension of Abdullah Hashem Abdullah Jabara – Case no. 2816/10, ID 936110626

Defence counsel Naji Aamer argues that all his questions pertaining to extending the remand in the Russian Compound were met with “The answer is in the confidential file”. He does not understand the details of the charges. The court determined in the past that it is not enough to state the nature of the offence – ‘disturbing the public order’; they must say what is attributed to the offender, on what dates, what place  – in other words, they must provide details. It is in the public’s interest to hear the details and the attorney’s right to know what the authorities ascribe to his client. The court must oversee the investigation... a long remand intensifies psychological pressure on the suspects and leads to false confessions... if the interrogation continues endlessly, then ultimately someone or something else crops up – because other people were interrogated...

Fine words, indeed. So where has this magnificent militant who praises human rights appeared from? Well, we realise that this fighter for detainees’ rights was, until one year ago, in charge of the prosecution at the Ofer Military Court. He took off his uniform, donned a judge’s gown, and is now defending the detainees whom he previously jailed – and is making a living thereby. And he has a partner too: Ismail A-Tawil who has no permit to enter Israel, so he brings his clientele from the Occupied Territories, and Naji Aamer is their defence counsel in the detention facility at the Russian Compound. Afterwards, when they come for trial at Ofer, where Attorney A-Tawil is permitted to enter, the two sit side-by-side. But Att. Aamer denies to us that they are partners. No, no, he says. No, he isn’t my partner.

Haven’t they heard, at the Military Prosecution, about a cooling-off period?

I maintain that they are birds of a feather.

The Palestinians think that his military past and the good connections of Attorney Aamer in the military prosecution will help him to obtain better plea-bargain cases. Maybe it’s true, maybe not.

For example, we presented the previous excerpt from the Russian Compound on purpose. This nice pair, Aamer and A-Tawil, are defending both Abdullah Jabara and Muhammad Radwan Jabara. One of them incriminated the other, we couldn’t follow exactly, and the court was very angry, and also reproved Attorney Aamer for this conflict of interests.

The next hearing was scheduled for 7.2.11, but it can be assumed that the case will be concluded in a plea bargain, well before that date.